Closed
Bug 865902
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Port old gfx unit tests
Categories
(Core :: Graphics, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla25
People
(Reporter: BenWa, Assigned: BenWa)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 6 obsolete files)
81.26 KB,
patch
|
BenWa
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I looked through the old unit tests we stopped running and Region & ColorNames where good candidates (useful & easy to port).
Attachment #742078 -
Flags: review?(milan)
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 742078 [details] [diff] [review] patch Review of attachment 742078 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Assuming gfx/tests/gtests is a new directory and these files moved over in another patch. ::: gfx/tests/TestColorNames.cpp @@ +50,5 @@ > > // Check that color lookup by name gets the right rgb value > + ASSERT_TRUE(NS_ColorNameToRGB(NS_ConvertASCIItoUTF16(tagName), &rgb)) << > + "can't find '" << tagName.get() << "'"; > + ASSERT_TRUE((rgb == kColors[index])); Is it useful to give the index back as extra information? Perhaps something like: ASSERT_TRUE((rgb == kColors[index])) << " failed at index " << index << " out of " << ArrayLength(kColorNames); Other places below with similar things. ::: gfx/tests/TestRegion.cpp @@ +12,2 @@ > nsRegion region(r); > + EXPECT_TRUE(region.GetLargestRectangle().IsEqualInterior(r)); In the context of keeping the functionality we had before, this makes sense, I was just wondering why it's a non-failing test (EXPECT_, rather than ASSERT_).
Attachment #742078 -
Flags: review?(milan) → review+
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Summary: Port Region & ColorNames tests → Port old gfx unit tests
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Milan Sreckovic [:milan] from comment #1) > ::: gfx/tests/TestRegion.cpp > @@ +12,2 @@ > > nsRegion region(r); > > + EXPECT_TRUE(region.GetLargestRectangle().IsEqualInterior(r)); > > In the context of keeping the functionality we had before, this makes sense, > I was just wondering why it's a non-failing test (EXPECT_, rather than > ASSERT_). No particular reason. I'm hoping these tests will rarely fail so it shouldn't matter much.
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
I left out the CMS test since we have better tests in qcms that we're using at the moment. Also these tests are from when we still used lcms.
Assignee: nobody → bgirard
Attachment #742078 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #777585 -
Flags: review?(milan)
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 777585 [details] [diff] [review] Port all the tests Review of attachment 777585 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry for the delay, got lost in the queue. ::: gfx/tests/gtest/TestRect.cpp @@ +27,5 @@ > > // Make sure the rectangle was properly initialized > + EXPECT_TRUE(rect2.x == rect1.x && rect2.y == rect2.y && > + rect2.width == rect2.width && rect2.height == rect2.height) << > + "[2] Make sure the rectangle was properly initialized with copy constructor"; Should we just use EXPECT_TRUE(rect1 == rect2) here? I guess you were just producing the matching code, fair enough, should probably just stay this way. @@ +122,5 @@ > RectType rect2(rect1); > > // Test against a rect that's the same as rect1 > + EXPECT_FALSE(!rect1.Intersects(rect2)) << > + "[1] Test against a rect that's the same as rect1"; All of the tests below make sense as a "conversion to gunit framework", but the result does start looking clumsy with EXCEPT_FALSE(!something) instead of EXCEPT_TRUE(something)...
Attachment #777585 -
Flags: review?(milan) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
Yes you're right. The test don't provide much value so I almost just removed them since they haven't been running for about 2 years. I think the test could be nicer but considering they haven't regressed I don't see us maintaining them so code cleanliness isn't important here.
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=b759ce60e32e
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=4f0db79acbff
Attachment #777585 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #783889 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=3bc6c96bcee5
Attachment #783889 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #784176 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=c6fb59b3fb9d
Attachment #784176 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #784413 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=e2eacd015ad3
Attachment #784413 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #784548 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
Decided to retire the gfxFontSelectionTest.cpp because it's not a great test and has problems which I don't believe are worth the time to fix. I'd rather write a more useful test in another bug, if we want that. https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=70a8a26e0967
Attachment #784548 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #784657 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/58aed54902a5
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/58aed54902a5
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Flags: in-testsuite+
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla25
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•